Man Tricks Woman with Abortion Smoothie - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kljunas;47356113] imo the state should be the one to pay for child support in such a situation.[/QUOTE]The child support law exists for the sole reason of state not having to pay for it.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47352065]Accidents happen and condoms nor contraceptives work 100% of the time and if that happens, and the potential parents can't reach an agreement. Or imagine a different scenario. Man asks if the woman is on the pill. She claims that yes, while she isn't. There's a lot of different reasons why a similar institute would actually make sense. But it would have to be timelimited.[/QUOTE] If I wouldn't know for sure she was on the pill, I'd still use a condom. Better safe than sorry, and double protection never harmed anyone.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47355929]If you give men the possibility to simply sign a form and waive parental responsibilities, what legal justification could you give to disallow women from doing the same? Women can't currently sign away parental responsibility but have the child anyway and dump it entirely on the father, so why should men be allowed to do that?[/QUOTE] I think that's perfectly legitimate. If the man wants the child, but the mother doesn't, I think it's perfectly fair that if she wants to have the baby, then relinquish any responsibility, she should be able to do that. If neither parent wants the child, there is abortion or adoption. If a woman gets pregnant, she has plenty of options: 1) Abortion 2) Keep it 3) Adoption A man, however, doesn't have any options. Currently, his options are decided by the woman, and he is forced to "deal with it". That's why you see people doing desperate things like this. They get painted into a corner and see atrocious acts like this as the only way out.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47351479]To him 7 years in Norwegian prison is probably better than a lifetime of hefty child support payments. Now if it was American prison where we throw you in a cell to live like an animal for 7 years...[/QUOTE] The last time I remember something like this happening in the US, the guy got struck with murder charges for killing the baby and was sentenced to a lot more than 7 years.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47352679]These aren't the same situations though. As it stands, by a man absolving his responsibility to support his own child, he's putting a significant personal and financial burden on the woman, despite being partially responsible. A man wanting a child with a woman who wants to abort it doesn't face anywhere near the same level of burden. In the end, both parties maintain some level of responsibility by having engaged in intercourse in the first place. If we go by what you're suggesting, the man is either unable to have the child (which, since he isn't the carrier, isn't a significant burden, and the alternative is forcing the woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want), or he's able to just leave scot-free, whereas the woman either has to go through an abortion or an entire pregnancy (both being very significant events) and potentially have to shoulder it all on their own. These aren't equal situations - the woman carries a much greater burden no matter what.[/QUOTE] I think he's trying to illustrate the one sidedness of that interaction and trying to explain why that's not really right for a society that cares about equality. [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47355929]If you give men the possibility to simply sign a form and waive parental responsibilities, what legal justification could you give to disallow women from doing the same? Women can't currently sign away parental responsibility but have the child anyway and dump it entirely on the father, so why should men be allowed to do that?[/QUOTE] You ignored that he already covered the way out of the responsibility for women. Men don't have a choice in the issue, they don't have agency in the issue. If a woman was stripped of agency in a similar fashion, we'd have an uproar over it I'm sure. [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354544]It's actually a very real situation. [URL="https://www.google.com.au/search?&q=boyfriend+removed+condom"]Just google it.[/URL] [editline]20th March 2015[/editline] What do you want changed then?[/QUOTE] "if you can't offer a better solution your criticism is worthless" No, criticism of things that are broken should always be welcome lest we become complacent and set in our ways.

A sign of the fact women hold all the power when It comes to pregnancy. Cornering a desperate person has unpleasant results.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47356439]I think that's perfectly legitimate. If the man wants the child, but the mother doesn't, I think it's perfectly fair that if she wants to have the baby, then relinquish any responsibility, she should be able to do that. If neither parent wants the child, there is abortion or adoption. If a woman gets pregnant, she has plenty of options: 1) Abortion 2) Keep it 3) Adoption A man, however, doesn't have any options. Currently, his options are decided by the woman, and he is forced to "deal with it". That's why you see people doing desperate things like this. They get painted into a corner and see atrocious acts like this as the only way out.[/QUOTE] Adoption requires the consent of both parents unless parental responsibility has already been waived or the father is out of the picture (or, of course, if the court decides that it's in the best interest of the child to not require the father's consent) so women only have two options - a medical procedure, or support the child.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47358882]Adoption requires the consent of both parents unless parental responsibility has already been waived or the father is out of the picture (or, of course, if the court decides that it's in the best interest of the child to not require the father's consent) so women only have two options - a medical procedure, or support the child.[/QUOTE] That's why I agreed that women should also be able to waive their parental responsibility if the father wants it. If the mother doesn't want it, but the father does, the options should be: 1) Mother can abort (her right) 2) Mother can waive all responsibility after birth, father takes the child. Father must support mother through pregnancy. If the father doesn't want the baby, but the mother does, the options should be: 1) Father can waive all responsibility after birth, mother takes child. If neither want the baby, the options should be: 1) Mother could have it aborted (her right) 2) Mother could give birth, and both parents waive responsibility and give it up for adoption. Father and mother both responsible until birth, but not after. This is a much fairer system. Both parties have options and neither is being forced into anything.

Except that method would put a huge burden on the adoption system when we could instead just use that funding to expand welfare support for parents so nobody [i]needs[/i] to be on the hook for child support and single parents will be able to raise children successfully - with the added bonus of more children being raised by at least one biological parent.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47359589]Except that method would put a huge burden on the adoption system when we could instead just use that funding to expand welfare support for parents so nobody [i]needs[/i] to be on the hook for child support and single parents will be able to raise children successfully - with the added bonus of more children being raised by at least one biological parent.[/QUOTE] Having children is not just taxing on your wallet. It essentially destroys your life and reduces you to a child-caring machine.

I can't stop laughing at "abortion smoothie"

Gonna be controversial here. Fucking shitty thing he did - But i can kiiinda see where it's coming from. Fucking shitty to be forced to raise a child with a woman you don't even love that much for 18 years [editline]20th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;47359649]Having children is not just taxing on your wallet. It essentially destroys your life and reduces you to a child-caring machine.[/QUOTE] Yup. Forget your plans about higher education or going out with your friends anymore - He's still young and suddenly he has to take care of this kid every single second of the day.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;47351535]7 years is less than the rest of your life[/QUOTE] Well.. you do stay with a criminal record for the rest of your life.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47358882]Adoption requires the consent of both parents unless parental responsibility has already been waived or the father is out of the picture (or, of course, if the court decides that it's in the best interest of the child to not require the father's consent) so women only have two options - a medical procedure, or support the child.[/QUOTE] That's still two more options than what men have now.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;47360925]Well.. you do stay with a criminal record for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE] Which, from what I've heard about Norway's prisons aiming at rehabilitation and in general in the Uk at least, isn't actually that major if it was a one time thing.

[QUOTE=Widow Engie;47362377]Which, from what I've heard about Norway's prisons aiming at rehabilitation and in general in the Uk at least, isn't actually that major if it was a one time thing.[/QUOTE] There are places where criminal records don't ruin your life? I'm genuinely impressed. That's something more countries need to look into.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47359589]Except that method would put a huge burden on the adoption system when we could instead just use that funding to expand welfare support for parents so nobody [i]needs[/i] to be on the hook for child support and single parents will be able to raise children successfully - with the added bonus of more children being raised by at least one biological parent.[/QUOTE] I don't think it would put any more strain on the adoption system. If anything, I think knowing that the father doesn't have to support the mother would make the mother think more critically about her decision, and it's repercussions, which would lead to more abortions, and therefore less children in situations like single parents or adoption. You're also assuming that more fathers would just automatically choose not to support their child. You will still have child support for any shared custody situations, or situations where sole custody is awarded to one party due to things like domestic violence from the other. You just wouldn't have child support for fathers who never wanted a child, and don't want anything to do with them or even see them.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47359589]Except that method would put a huge burden on the adoption system when we could instead just use that funding to expand welfare support for parents so nobody [i]needs[/i] to be on the hook for child support and single parents will be able to raise children successfully - with the added bonus of more children being raised by at least one biological parent.[/QUOTE] You're acting as though every man wants to run away as soon as his partner gets pregnant. Single mothers can already give up their children for adoption so the amount of children who are left without their biological parents probably wouldn't go up significantly, if it even went up measurably. It's entirely possible to give men a legal out in the cases where they don't want children [i]and[/i] to increase welfare support for single parents.